Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 120
05/09/2007 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB232 | |
| HB172 | |
| HJR17 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| HJR 17 | |||
| + | HB 172 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 232 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
May 9, 2007
1:27 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jay Ramras, Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Ralph Samuels
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 232
"An Act relating to the sale, distribution, and purchase of
alcoholic beverages; relating to a state database for records of
certain purchases of alcoholic beverages; relating to the
relocation of a license to sell alcoholic beverages; relating to
procedures for local option elections for control of alcoholic
beverages; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 232(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 172
"An Act exempting certain commercial refuse services from
regulation under the Public Utilities Regulatory Act and
providing for termination of that exemption."
- MOVED HB 172 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 17
Encouraging Coeur Alaska, Inc., to pursue all legal options to
resolve the issues presented in Southeast Alaska Conservation
Council v. United States Army Corps of Engineers on behalf of
itself and consistent with the state's efforts to enforce its
rights as a state over its resources; and requesting the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to adjudicate
those matters that come before the court in a fair and impartial
manner so that the state's natural resources can be developed in
a timely and lawful manner.
- MOVED HJR 17 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 232
SHORT TITLE: ALCOHOL SALE/PURCHASE/DISTRIBUTION
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) MEYER
04/04/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/04/07 (H) CRA, JUD, FIN
04/12/07 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
04/12/07 (H) Heard & Held
04/12/07 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
04/26/07 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
04/26/07 (H) Heard & Held
04/26/07 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
05/02/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
05/02/07 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
05/04/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
05/04/07 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
05/05/07 (H) CRA AT 11:00 AM BARNES 124
05/05/07 (H) Moved CSHB 232(CRA) Out of Committee
05/05/07 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
05/08/07 (H) CRA RPT CS(CRA) NT 2DP 3NR 2AM
05/08/07 (H) DP: CISSNA, FAIRCLOUGH
05/08/07 (H) NR: DAHLSTROM, LEDOUX, OLSON
05/08/07 (H) AM: NEUMAN, SALMON
05/09/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 172
SHORT TITLE: PUBLIC UTILITY EXEMPTION: REFUSE
SPONSOR(s): LABOR & COMMERCE
03/05/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/05/07 (H) L&C, JUD
05/02/07 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
05/02/07 (H) Moved Out of Committee
05/02/07 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
05/03/07 (H) L&C RPT 1DP 5NR
05/03/07 (H) DP: OLSON
05/03/07 (H) NR: GARDNER, LEDOUX, BUCH, NEUMAN,
GATTO
05/03/07 (H) FIN REFERRAL ADDED AFTER JUD
05/09/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HJR 17
SHORT TITLE: KENSINGTON MINE APPEAL
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) JOHNSON
04/05/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/05/07 (H) RES, JUD
04/30/07 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/30/07 (H) Moved CSHJR 17(RES) Out of Committee
04/30/07 (H) MINUTE(RES)
05/04/07 (H) RES RPT CS(RES) NT 6DP 2DNP 1NR
05/04/07 (H) DP: KOHRING, ROSES, WILSON, SEATON,
JOHNSON, GATTO
05/04/07 (H) DNP: EDGMON, GUTTENBERG
05/04/07 (H) NR: KAWASAKI
05/09/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
MICHAEL PAWLOWSKI, Staff
to Representative Kevin Meyer
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 232 on behalf of the sponsor,
Representative Meyer.
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General
Legal Services Section-Juneau
Criminal Division
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in support of and answered questions
about HB 232.
KAREN BITZER, Special Assistant
Alaska Rural Justice and Law Enforcement Commission (ARJLEC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in support of HB 232.
ELEANOR WOLFE, Staff
to Representative Kurt Olson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 172 on behalf of the sponsor,
the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee, which is
chaired by Representative Olson.
LARRY KELLY, General Manager
University Refuse, LLC
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided supporting testimony and answered
questions on HB 172.
RICHARD GAZAWAY, Administrative Law Judge
Common Carrier Section
Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA)
Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development
(DCCED)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony and answered questions
on HB 172.
JAMES KEEN, Chief/Engineering
Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA)
Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development
(DCCED)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony and answered questions
on HB 172.
BOB COX, General Manager
Alaska Waste
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 172.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG JOHNSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as the sponsor of HJR 17.
MARK RORICK, Chair
Juneau Chapter
Sierra Club
San Francisco, California
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke on behalf of the Sierra Club with
regard to HJR 17.
ROB CADMUS, Organizer
Water Quality and Mining
Southeast Alaska Conservation Council (SEACC)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered testimony and answered questions on
the Kensington mine project with regard to HJR 17.
TOM BRICE, Juneau Business Agent
Laborers Local 942
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in support of HJR 17.
HAYWARD COOLY
Laborers Local 942
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in support of HJR 17.
STEVE BORELL, Executive Director
Alaska Miners Association (AMA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke on behalf of the association in
support of HJR 17.
EDMUND FOGELS, Acting Deputy Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner, Anchorage Office
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions and gave testimony on
HJR 17.
CAMERON LEONARD, Senior Assistant Attorney General
Natural Resources Section
Civil Division (Fairbanks)
Department of Law (DOL)
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered testimony and answered questions on
HJR 17.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDREA DOLL
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered testimony on the Kensington mine
project during discussion of HJR 17.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR JAY RAMRAS called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:27:34 PM. Representatives Ramras,
Dahlstrom, Holmes, and Lynn were present at the call to order.
Representatives Coghill, Gruenberg, and Samuels arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 232 - ALCOHOL SALE/PURCHASE/DISTRIBUTION
1:27:59 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 232, "An Act relating to the sale, distribution,
and purchase of alcoholic beverages; relating to a state
database for records of certain purchases of alcoholic
beverages; relating to the relocation of a license to sell
alcoholic beverages; relating to procedures for local option
elections for control of alcoholic beverages; and providing for
an effective date." [Before the committee was CSHB 232(CRA).]
1:28:22 PM
MICHAEL PAWLOWSKI, Staff to Representative Kevin Meyer, Alaska
State Legislature, said on behalf of Representative Meyer,
sponsor, that HB 232 contains recommendations from the Alaska
Rural Justice and Law Enforcement Commission (ARJLEC) relating
to the clean-up of statutes on bootlegging, as well as two other
substantive provisions. He spoke first about proposed AS
04.06.095, the creation of a statewide database to track written
alcohol orders that would allow licensees to more easily comply
with the law, by ensuring the alcohol shipments going to "wet
and damp communities" were consistent with the law. He then
commented on the creation of an alcohol beverage delivery pilot
project, a central hub for the distribution of alcohol.
Finally, he relayed that the sponsor had promised the House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee to bring up
members' concerns regarding proposed AS 04.16.035, "Possession
of ingredients for homebrew ...". Mr. Pawlowski said
Representative Salmon was concerned the phrase "with the intent
to use" would lead to over reaching by law enforcement
officials.
CHAIR RAMRAS asked if these named ingredients were viewed as
precursors, similar to the perception of ingredients for the
manufacture of methamphetamines.
MR. PAWLOWSKI responded that these ingredients' being viewed as
precursors is the reason for Representative Salmon's concern.
1:31:12 PM
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL),
reported that Deputy Attorney General Craig Tillery, State Co-
Chair of ARJLEC, had testified to both bodies of the legislature
in favor of HB 232. She mentioned that the ARJLEC membership
voted unanimously for all the provisions of HB 232.
1:31:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES asked for clarification that HB 232 is
consistent with the findings of the ARJLEC and that there are no
major differences.
MS. CARPENETI responded that HB 232 is consistent with those
findings. She commented that in a prior house committee
meeting, the ARJLEC membership offered their support of the
bill. She also noted that the ARJLEC commissioners have
testified of their desire to stem the flow of bootleg alcohol
into their communities.
CHAIR RAMRAS expressed his familiarity with the business of
small liquor stores sending pallets of alcohol to rural Alaska.
He asked if the DOL agreed that Representative Salmon had a
legitimate concern that overzealous DPS [Department of Public
Safety] officers or Village Public Safety Officers (VPSOs) might
suspect these ingredients [sugar, malt, yeast] as homebrew
precursors, and request a [search] warrant.
MS. CARPENETI replied that in order to request a search warrant,
there must be probable cause that a person has these ingredients
with the "specific intent" to make an alcoholic beverage. She
pointed out that a "specific intent" crime is particularly
difficult to prove and the DOL does not believe that "specific
intent" will be used often because of the problems with proof.
She said the DOL supported proposed AS 04.16.035 because, as in
similar circumstances with precursors for methamphetamine
ingredients and burglary tools, it may be useful in certain
circumstances.
CHAIR RAMRAS asked if the language [in proposed AS 04.16.035]
met with Representative Salmon's satisfaction.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM offered her understanding that should
Representative Salmon have a preference, he would want [proposed
AS 04.16.035] removed. She had relayed to Representative Salmon
that all of these ingredients were found in her home, as well.
Representative Salmon, she noted, was concerned that people who
live in a rural area often need to purchase in bulk. She said
she was satisfied, given the wording "with the intent to use",
that overreaching by law enforcement would not be an issue.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES asked whether a distributor of the
ingredients [yeast, sugar, malt] would refuse to ship as a
result of the provision.
MS. CARPENETI replied that she did not think so, assuming that
it must be common for people in rural areas to order in bulk.
She reminded the committee of "the intent to use" clause. She
allowed there had not been any untoward prosecution for cold
medicine, even though they are a precursor ingredient for
methamphetamine production.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES asked whether there had been any problem
with rural communities receiving cold medicine or other supplies
[deemed precursor ingredients] because suppliers would not ship
to them.
MS. CARPENETI said she had not heard of any concerns but offered
to research the issue further.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM said the shippers are interested in
selling as much food as possible and if they saw an increase in
the sale of these ingredients, they would contact the proper
authorities.
1:37:38 PM
KAREN BITZER, Special Assistant, Alaska Rural Justice and Law
Enforcement Commission (ARJLEC), updated the committee on the
work of the ARJLEC. She explained that HB 232 contains some of
the recommendations from the ARJLEC, which is pleased for the
support of these ideas. She relayed that the ARJLEC feels this
is an important step to support those communities which have
elected to remain dry.
CHAIR RAMRAS conveyed that there is broad committee support for
the bill.
CHAIR RAMRAS, after asking if there was any more testimony,
closed public testimony on HB 232.
CHAIR RAMRAS moved to adopt Amendment 1, which read [original
punctuation provided]:
Page 2, following line 5:
Insert new bill section to read:
"Sec. 2. AS 04.11.010(a) is amended to read:
(a) Except as provided in AS 04.11.020, a person may
not knowingly manufacture, sell, offer for sale,
possess for sale or barter, traffic in, or barter an
alcoholic beverage unless under license or permit
issued under this title."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM objected for discussion.
CHAIR RAMRAS asked if inserting the word "knowingly" was in
response to the concerns of Representative Salmon.
MR. PAWLOWSKI specified that this issue had been brought up
after the House Community and Regional Affairs Standing
Committee heard the bill. He disclosed that the [sponsor]
discovered that judges in different parts of the state are
inserting a different "mental state" into their interpretation
of the statutes. He stated that the DOL suggested [Amendment 1]
to clarify that the "mental state" is supposed to be
"knowingly".
The committee took an at-ease from 1:42 p.m. to 1:44 p.m.
1:44:05 PM
MR. PAWLOWSKI, in response to questions, relayed that Amendment
1 does not address language currently in the bill, and cited AS
04.11.010(a) as a blanket provision, "your kind of premise
bootleg statute." The language of proposed Amendment 1 will be
inserted [after Section 1] of the bill, where it begins
referencing AS 04.11.
CHAIR RAMRAS asked for a legal definition of the word
"knowingly".
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES offered her understanding that existing
statute doesn't reference a mental state. She surmised that not
all [Alaska] courts are using the same standard, and this is an
amendment to make sure they all do.
MR. PAWLOWSKI concurred that this is the intent of Amendment 1.
MS. CARPENETI, in response to a question, relayed that Title 11
provides that every crime which does not have a culpable mental
state specifically provided, allow the implied culpable mental
state for action to be "knowingly". She explained that a
different standard must be specified, for example, criminally
negligent. She indicated that although most judges are
interpreting this statute with the mental state of "knowingly",
the Bethel area judges are not. The standard of "knowingly" is
easier to prove than "intentionally", she remarked and
acknowledged that it does not make a lot of difference in this
statute, but the difference is critical in other statutes.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked where it discusses mental state
in Title 4.
MS. CARPENETI said that Title 4 defines the mental states of
"knowingly" and "criminal negligence" but does not define
"intentionally".
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG reflected that the standard is not the
same in Title 4 as in Title 11. He recalled that a "reckless"
element is required if nothing else is defined.
MS. CARPENETI responded that that is not correct.
MR. PAWLOWSKI offered that [AS 11.81.610(b)] provides that when
a mental state is not described, the mental state regarding
conduct is "knowingly", and the mental state regarding
circumstances [or results] is "recklessly". Therefore, since
the issue pertains to conduct, the mental state would be
"knowingly".
1:49:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, after reading that statute out loud,
offered his understanding that under Title 11, the question of
whether someone is under license or permit would be a
circumstance; therefore, a prosecutor would not have to show
that the seller knew he/she did not have a license. If the
person acted "recklessly", that action would be sufficient to
prove the crime. He projected that this is key, as someone may
be selling and could say they did not know, but in a commercial
situation, selling alcohol and acting "recklessly" without a
license should be criminal.
MS. CARPENETI responded that "knowingly" modifies manufacture in
this regard. She agreed with Representative Gruenberg that
"recklessly" would be the culpable mental state, which would be
applied whether or not the individual had a license. However,
the conduct of manufacturing alcohol would be "knowingly."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to a question, surmised
that is key to what must be proven by the prosecution. He
explained that the individual would have to "knowingly" sell the
liquor, but the individual is acting "recklessly" by not
checking to see if a license is necessary. He asked if Ms.
Carpeneti is certain [of her explanation of the statute, and its
application].
MS. CARPENETI responded that she is certain.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM removed her objection.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his belief that HB 232 should
be clarified so that the issue concerning an awareness of a
current permit would be defined as "recklessly."
MS. CARPENETI expressed satisfaction with the current draft of
HB 232.
CHAIR RAMRAS again moved to adopt Amendment 1 [text provided
previously]. There being no further objection, Amendment 1 was
adopted.
1:52:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report CSHB 232(CRA), as
amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB
232(JUD) was moved out of committee.
HB 172 - PUBLIC UTILITY EXEMPTION: REFUSE
1:53:29 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 172, "An Act exempting certain commercial refuse
services from regulation under the Public Utilities Regulatory
Act and providing for termination of that exemption."
The committee took an at-ease from 1:54 p.m. to 1:57 p.m.
1:57:16 PM
ELEANOR WOLFE, Staff to Representative Kurt Olson, Alaska State
Legislature, said, on behalf of Representative Olson, chair of
the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee, sponsor, that
HB 172 was introduced with the idea that competition will remove
the regulatory fees and reduce other fees, should [the
commercial refuse industry] be deregulated.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG reflected that when deregulation occurs
or governmental costs are reduced, there is not necessarily a
price reduction. He asked if there is anything the committee
can do to ensure a price reduction.
MS. WOLFE responded that probably there was not.
2:00:04 PM
LARRY KELLY, General Manager, University Refuse, LLC, said rate
deregulation of the commercial portion of the refuse industry is
essential to the health and well being of the industry's
customer base. He explained that competitive pricing is the
essential motivation for a company to maintain a dynamic
customer-oriented marketing plan while customer service is the
key to success. He offered his belief that HB 172 will decrease
the response time between a customer's request for innovative
service and its implementation. He said he believes that HB 172
will positively alter the face of the market, level the playing
field, and promote a proactive partnership with the customers,
rather than the "Hey, I'm just your garbage man" approach. He
said he feels deregulation is positive, even if the Regulatory
Commission of Alaska (RCA) chooses to continue to charge the
regulatory fee, as all the companies would then be required to
pay that fee. He suggested that the bill would eliminate the
possible manipulation of revenue reporting to avoid regulation,
which is possible under current statutes. The RCA would be able
to focus on the more important issues of certification, quality
control, and research and enforcement of customer complaints.
He surmises that the bill would mandate the refuse industry to
further its customer skills. He repeated that he supports the
deregulation of commercial refuse.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether, if the commercial
regulation is eliminated, that would remove a line item cost in
the billing.
MR. KELLY responded that this is not necessarily the case, as he
has not been informed that he may remove that RCA charge from a
rate, even though the rate may be deregulated. He said he
understands that even with the resulting regulation [after the
passage of proposed HB 172] the RCA charge could still exist.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if this meant there would not be
a cost savings to the consumer.
MR. KELLY conveyed that there would be a cost savings if the
pricing is competitive and if the market mandates a competitive,
flexible approach in order to maintain the customer base. He
offered that upon his review of HB 172, it was not explicit that
the deregulation concept removed the charge. He said he
understood this bill would remove or deregulate the $300,000
threshold so that all the refuse companies would have to pay the
regulatory commission fee. He said he still believes in
flexible pricing.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked what the bill does if it doesn't
remove the charge.
2:05:11 PM
RICHARD GAZAWAY, Administrative Law Judge, Common Carrier
Section, Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA), Department of
Commerce, Community, & Economic Development (DCCED), said a
funding mechanism for the RCA is the right to recover regulatory
cost charges (RCCs). He explained that the RCC is a percentage
amount imposed on regulated utilities, allowing the RCA to
recover the actual cost of service not collected from exempt
utilities. The RCC percentage allocation is capped under AS
42.05.254(f), which also states that the RCA shall allow a
public utility to recover all payments made to the commission
under this statute. He offered his understanding that under
proposed HB 172, the commercial refuse companies would not
allocate an RCC charge because it would not be a cost imposed by
the RCA.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed his confusion. He said there
appear to be several charges. He asked Mr. Gazaway to clarify
Section 1 of HB 172, which in part reads "exempt from the
provisions of this chapter." He asked whether the utilities
would continue to charge consumers the regulatory fee.
MR. GAZAWAY responded that the utilities would be exempt from
certain provisions of the chapter. However, the RCC fee is
within sections AS 42.05.221-281 and these sections are not
exempt. He explained that the RCC fee is a monthly allocation
per industry, passed on to the consumer from the utility, and
this pass-through charge would no longer be imposed because the
utilities would not be paying that flat RCC amount.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if there will be a reduction, or
an elimination of one of the charges.
MR. GAZAWAY replied that it is correct that the commercial
refuse customers would not be paying the pass-through RCC charge
which they are currently paying, pursuant to AS 42.05.254.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Mr. Kelly if the University
Refuse bill to the customer would reflect elimination of that
RCC charge.
MR. KELLY said yes, if that was the regulation.
2:08:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG mentioned that part of his district is
served by the [Anchorage Municipal Solid Waste Services], and
part is served by Waste Management, a private company. He
explained that there are landlords in his district who rent
dumpsters which are too small, and when the garbage overflows,
this creates a significant problem. He asked whether the RCA or
the city zoning department enforces this transgression.
MR. KELLY responded that he did not know.
CHAIR RAMRAS, addressing a question to Mr. Kelly, said he has
seen a large turnover of commercial refuse companies during the
last three to five years. He asked what the result will be for
both the consumer and the commercial refuse companies within the
larger municipalities should HB 172 pass.
MR. KELLY replied that under proposed HB 172, when a competitor
enters the marketplace with new and innovative costs of service,
the currently-operating company will be better able to respond
competitively. Currently, the operating company needs to file
with the regulatory agencies. This is a long, arduous review
process. During the review time, the currently-operating
company cannot respond competitively. With the passage of HB
172, the currently-operating company could respond much more
quickly.
CHAIR RAMRAS surmised that HB 172 would be good for companies,
allowing them to move quickly, and good for consumers, bringing
competition into the market.
MR. KELLY concurred.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG mentioned that he has witnessed, in
both the trucking and broadcasting industries, challenges to new
permits in an attempt to drive the new applicants out of
business. He asked whether this was the practice prior to the
establishment of the RCA.
2:15:44 PM
JAMES KEEN, Chief/Engineering, Regulatory Commission of Alaska
(RCA), Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development
(DCCED), offered that there has been a lot of recent
consolidation by commercial refuse utilities. He explained that
HB 172 will not change the barrier to entry for new competitors,
but will instead allow larger commercial refuse competitors to
be more agile. He reported that there have been recent
proceedings wherein competitors have applied and the larger
existing companies have filed comments in opposition, but the
RCA has still allowed more competition. Generally, though,
competition has declined in all the major utility markets in
Alaska.
CHAIR RAMRAS asked if this were a result of capital costs.
MR. KEEN replied that this is generally a result of buyouts.
CHAIR RAMRAS commented this is a condition of the marketplace.
He said he assumed that it was the cost of capital that kept the
small competitor out of the marketplace.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his understanding that Mr.
Gazaway is saying that an effect of HB 172 will be to make the
larger companies more "agile," yet that agility might make it
more difficult for the smaller companies to compete.
MR. GAZAWAY responded that the current process is meant for
regulated commercial refuse providers that earn over a specific
revenue threshold, and there is a lag period of 30-45 days for
approval of a newly proposed rate. He offered his belief that
under HB 172, there would not be a rate approval process, so
rate changes could be immediate. He also disclosed that
currently there are five open proceedings whereby affiliates of
Alaska Pacific Environmental Services of Anchorage, LLC, doing
business as Alaska Waste, have petitioned for exemption under AS
42.05.711(d), which allows them to request an exemption from
some or all portions of AS 42.05.
2:19:31 PM
BOB COX, General Manager, Alaska Waste, explained that his
company is an Alaska-owned refuse company providing services
throughout Alaska. He stated that Alaska Waste supports HB 172,
as the bill deregulates the provision of commercial refuse
services. He noted Alaska Waste began as a two-truck operation,
competing against several companies including Waste Management,
the largest publicly held refuse management company in the U.S.,
during a rate deregulated environment for commercial refuse
which allowed Alaska Waste to implement strategies to compete
effectively against Waste Management.
MR. COX relayed that the RCA chose to implement full rate
regulation when Alaska Waste acquired the Waste Management
assets. Alaska Waste believes that the rate deregulation
environment provides the best options for both the industry and
the consumers because it allows for pricing flexibility,
innovative solutions, and expansion of the commercial service
offerings, thereby creating incentives for different diversion
techniques in recycling. He said he believes rate deregulation
provides for ease of entry into the market, reduces regulatory
requirements as a company grows, and allows for customer
determination of service requirements based on different service
options provided by competitors in a market place.
MR. COX surmised that HB 172 will eliminate the significant
burden on the RCA to police various competitors' compliance,
remove commercial refuse from cost-based, rate-making
proceedings, eliminate RCA staff time for these proceedings,
retain RCA oversight of the commercial refuse industry through
continued certification requirements, and retain the RCA
investigatory and enforcement options based on customer
complaint or petition. He concluded that Alaska Waste believes
HB 172 represents good public policy because it will promote
competition, eliminate unnecessary regulation, and allow for
oversight of the industry to ensure effective and fair
competition.
2:21:49 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS asked how a new company would enter the market and
get consumer business.
MR. COX responded that the refuse industry is different than
many other regulated utilities. He revealed that although a
company could be started with one truck and a few containers, it
is the RCA certification process which is cumbersome and time
consuming. He offered his belief that the previous rate
deregulated model of the RCA allowed a reduced standard for
attaining certification since a company only needed to show they
had equipment and insurance to operate. He noted that although
buying a truck is not a minimal expense, it is one that pays
back fairly quickly. He explained that competing in the garbage
business is about providing the best quality of service which
entails offering the service package that the customer requires
or chooses. He said he believes one of the difficulties with a
rate regulated environment is the inability to provide many of
the options such as bundling of regulated and non-regulated
services. The service level offering is different under a rate
regulated environment versus a non-regulated one because under a
regulated environment the companies cannot offer as many
choices. He said Alaska Waste supports HB 172.
CHAIR RAMRAS asked how the passage of HB 172 would impact Alaska
Waste entering a new market.
MR. COX responded that passage of the bill would not accelerate
entry, as that is a function of the certification and transfer
process. It would, however, create more opportunity within the
state.
2:25:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked who is responsible for the
decision to allocate dumpsters that are too small to service
some locations.
MR. COX responded that his company tries to ensure that clients
have the correct level of service, but the difficulty is that
clients may have to pay more for the service, and clients are
attempting to minimize costs. He said Alaska Waste does work
with its clients, supplying larger dumpsters, or changing the
frequency of pickups, while trying to minimize the extra-cost
impact. He offered that Alaska Waste also tries to charge for
any extras, giving clients an incentive to change the level of
service. He explained that the Municipality of Anchorage (MOA)
is responsible for the enforcement of the code and, although the
MOA is busy, it has been cooperative with Alaska Waste when
citing problem clients. He granted that although Alaska Waste
does not have any enforcement ability, it does try to create an
economic incentive for its clients.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM suggested Representative Gruenberg call
his assembly person to address the enforcement issue.
CHAIR RAMRAS, after asking if there was any more testimony,
closed public testimony on HB 172.
2:28:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report HB 172 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HB 172 was moved out of
committee.
HJR 17 - KENSINGTON MINE APPEAL
2:28:47 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 17, Encouraging Coeur Alaska, Inc.,
to pursue all legal options to resolve the issues presented in
Southeast Alaska Conservation Council v. United States Army
Corps of Engineers on behalf of itself and consistent with the
state's efforts to enforce its rights as a state over its
resources; and requesting the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit to adjudicate those matters that come before
the court in a fair and impartial manner so that the state's
natural resources can be developed in a timely and lawful
manner. [Before the committee was CSHJR 17(RES).]
The committee took an at-ease from 2:28 p.m. to 2:32 p.m.
2:32:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG JOHNSON, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
explained that HJR 17 calls upon Coeur Alaska, Inc., to pursue
all the legal options up to and including the U.S. Supreme
Court. He said that the Kensington Gold Mine went through all
the state and federal permitting processes. After a lawsuit was
filed, the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska ruled
in favor of the mine, allowing it to proceed, but the 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals is in the process of overturning that
ruling. He offered his belief that this is not a mining issue,
but a resource issue that is being held up in court. He
encouraged everyone to protect the state's rights and the
permitting process; since Alaska is a resource development
state, this resolution encourages the owners of the Kensington
mine to pursue the permits, in order to protect the right to
develop Alaska's resources.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said the House Resources Standing
Committee removed some of the language in HJR 17 that was not
friendly to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. He said he is not
opposed to revisiting the language relating to the court that
was omitted by the House Resources Standing Committee. He felt
it was important to send a message that Alaska is a state that
will stand up for its rights. He concluded by saying that this
is "more about states rights than holes in the ground or
anything else." He encouraged Coeur Alaska to pursue all legal
options.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS referred to page 2, lines 10-12, of HJR
17, and asked if that was the only [language] that was taken out
of CSHJR 17(RES).
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON indicated that the language on page 2,
lines 18-21, of HJR 17, and the names of the heads of the other
states and territories that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has
jurisdiction over were also removed.
2:36:31 PM
MARK RORICK, Chair, Juneau Chapter, Sierra Club, said he was not
going to argue against HJR 17. However, the Sierra Club is
confident with the merits of the [decision by the 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals with regard to the Kensington mine] and the
Sierra Club is willing to argue those merits in any venue. He
offered his belief that the [U. S. Supreme Court] would not
accept the [Kensington mine] case, but if the court should, he
is confident the Sierra Club's stance would prevail. He
commented that he is not aware of any 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals environmental decision regarding the Tongass National
Forest that has been overturned since his involvement with the
Sierra Club. He noted that [the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals]
refused to hear a case on coal fired plants, even though the
appeal was supported by the coal industry and the Bush
Administration.
MR. RORICK offered to examine some of the other Kensington mine
issues. First, he addressed the assumption that mine waste
disposal in Lower Slate Lake is environmentally sound, or
preferable. He offered his belief that having tons of mine
waste impounded in a natural drainage above Berners Bay, behind
a dam subject to possible failure, in an earthquake zone, is not
environmentally acceptable or preferable. He noted that there
has been quite a bit of speculation regarding settlement and
negotiations [between the plaintiffs and the Kensington mine
owners]; however, to his knowledge, there are not any
negotiations presently occurring. He added that suggestions
have been presented to petition the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
to delay the decision [regarding the Kensington mine]. He
reported that the Sierra Club has no basis to negotiate the
allowable use of Lower Slate Lake as a mine waste storage
facility. He emphasized that the Sierra Club is willing to have
a continuing dialogue regarding other waste disposal methods,
and the Sierra Club is assuming that any dialogue would be
concurrent with the public process to analyze a new operating
plan. He expressed his desire that the proposed disposal plan
meet "legal muster" and is "the best possible legal option
environmentally."
MR. RORICK continued, addressing the issue of jobs at the
Kensington mine. He offered his belief that this issue is a
concern for everyone. He said he struggles daily with the
possible impact and regularly questions his personal motives.
He said he perceives that there is no evidence that Coeur Alaska
will walk away from the Kensington mine project as a result of
this [court decision]. More than half of the 400 jobs currently
offered at the Kensington mine are construction jobs, and mine
construction is now 80 percent complete. He said he believed
the dry stack method of disposal will most likely create more
construction and operating jobs. He summarized, expressing his
sincere hope that should Coeur Alaska need to scale back during
the new permitting process, this would have minimal impact on
the work crew.
2:42:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked if both the local and the national
chapters of the Sierra Club have taken a position opposite to
HJR 17.
MR. RORICK explained that the Sierra Club is a volunteer-run
organization and nearly all of these special matters are
initiated at the local chapter level. He continued, stating
that it would be very unusual for those at the national level to
override a local chapter. He emphasized that he is in continual
contact with the national organization of the Sierra Club, and
there would not be a national override in this case.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked whether the national chapter has
commented on HJR 17.
MR. RORICK reiterated that the national chapter is very much
aware of the issue. He relayed that he has corresponded with
the aide to the executive director of the Sierra Club, as well
as Sierra Club representatives in Washington, DC, and they
consider it to be an extremely important case, one they are not
willing to back away from.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked if funding was raised locally or
nationally.
MR. RORICK emphasized that the Sierra Club chapters have very
small budgets because the national budget is spread very thin.
He explained that budget distribution is based on membership,
and he surmised the Juneau chapter budget is less than an
average Juneau household income. He offered his belief there is
no outside money to prosecute this case.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked whether Mr. Rorick is a volunteer
or a paid employee of the Sierra Club.
MR. RORICK replied that he is a volunteer.
2:45:12 PM
[Chair Ramras turned the gavel over to Vice Chair Dahlstrom.]
ROB CADMUS, Organizer, Water Quality and Mining, Southeast
Alaska Conservation Council (SEACC), explained that SEACC is a
coalition of 17 volunteer citizen conservation groups extending
from Yakutat to Ketchikan, whose mission is to protect the
extraordinary natural resources of southeast Alaska while
ensuring their wise and sustainable use. He pointed out that
there are a lot of important issues at stake with the Kensington
mine, including jobs and responsible use of Alaska's natural
resources. He emphasized that the better people can understand
all the issues, the better they can all make wise decisions
regarding those issues.
MR. CADMUS reported that SEACC has worked on the Kensington mine
issue for more than 20 years, through two full permitting
processes. He reviewed some of this history, noting that in
1998, Kensington received a fully permitted plan for a dry stack
tailings facility; yet, Coeur Alaska decided not to take that
option, and instead redesigned its plan, which is currently
being discussed. He noted that SEACC has participated in each
step of this permitting process. In 2002, SEACC warned both
Coeur Alaska and the permitting agencies that the plan to use
Lower Slate Lake as a tailings facility violated the [federal]
Clean Water Act, putting Juneau's clean water at risk, and
setting a dangerous precedent for both Alaska and the United
States.
MR. CADMUS explained that this lawsuit challenges a permit
issued by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to
allow the daily discharge of about 210,000 gallons of chemically
processed mine tailings into a lake. This discharge would kill
all the fish and aquatic life in the lake. He reported that
prior to the Kensington mine permit, the USACE had never issued
a permit allowing the discharge of mine tailings into a U. S.
lake, because in 1982, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
adopted specific regulations prohibiting such practices for gold
mines. The EPA, after a nationwide study, concluded that the
discharge of mine tailings into navigable waters is unnecessary,
because there are feasible alternatives already being used.
MR. CADMUS noted that the EPA determined that it was
environmentally preferable to use a dry lands disposal method
for the tailings at the Kensington mine. He offered his belief
that Coeur Alaska chose to ignore these EPA determinations, and
instead changed their tailings disposal plan, gambling that no
one would challenge this new design. He continued, noting that
the Kensington mine must now redesign a legal tailings facility
that protects the waters of Berners Bay. In 1998, Coeur Alaska
had all the necessary permits for a dry stack tailings facility,
the same method used at both Greens Creek mine and Pogo mine.
He affirmed that SEACC would prefer the dry stack method.
[Vice Chair Dahlstrom returned the gavel to Chair Ramras.]
MR. CADMUS, in summary, stated that the Alaska constitution
requires development of the state's natural resources to the
benefit of all Alaskans, and there is little or no value to the
state and to the country if this is not done correctly at the
Kensington mine. He said he believes cutting corners today will
only create bigger problems in the future. He reminded the
committee that the legacy of mining is not a good one; too many
people and too many communities have been devastated by the
toxicity of mine waste to take lightly what Coeur Alaska is
trying to implement. He encouraged the committee to instead use
HJR 17 to meet the Alaska constitutional mandate which states
development be done for the benefit of all Alaskans, and this
would include the protection of Alaska's clean water. He asked
the committee to encourage Coeur Alaska to use all legal
options, including a redesign of its tailings disposal, to fully
protect Alaska's clean water.
2:50:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked whether SEACC would support the
mine wholeheartedly if it had a dry stack tailings facility.
MR. CADMUS replied that SEACC is willing to be involved in the
planning of a dry stack tailings facility. He noted that SEACC
would want to ensure that a dry stack tailings facility was done
properly and located in the correct area. He reminded the
committee that SEACC did not oppose Coeur's earlier proposal for
a dry stack tailings facility.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS voiced his concern that there would also
be a lawsuit against the dry stack tailings facility, causing a
delay in the development of the Kensington mine. He inquired
whether SEACC has broad opposition to this mine.
MR. CADMUS responded that SEACC does not have broad opposition
to the mine; the concern is for the protection of clean water.
He offered that SEACC is willing to work with Coeur Alaska on
options for tailings disposal, especially dry stacking.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked Mr. Cadmus if he or any member of
SEACC were a professional mining engineer or geologist.
MR. CADMUS replied that he is a water quality expert, and SEACC
does consult with mining geophysicists to obtain expertise.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if [SEACC] presented expert
testimony in the lawsuit with USACE.
MR. CADMUS responded that SEACC staff and hired professional
experts presented technical information and expert advice in
their briefings throughout the permitting process.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Mr. Cadmus whether his support of
dry tailings disposal and subsequent support of the mine,
depends on the final plans.
MR. CADMUS replied this is correct since, in principle, SEACC
feels that dry stack tailings in an appropriate location are the
"way to go." He again reminded the committee that SEACC did not
oppose the dry stack tailings facility in the 1997 plan.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked if SEACC opposed anything in the
1997 plan.
MR. CADMUS explained that SEACC did not oppose anything specific
with the Kensington mine, the objection was to the environmental
analysis regarding the cumulative effect to Berners Bay. He
commented that the Juneau Access Project, the Kensington mine,
the proposed hydro project, and the proposed ferry terminal were
not analyzed together, instead each was analyzed separately.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked if litigation was used to slow down
these projects.
MR. CADMUS replied that it was not.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked Mr. Cadmus to define "water quality
expert," and how his expertise differed from the other experts
who reviewed the Kensington mine plan.
MR. CADMUS responded that he could not claim an expertise. He
relayed that the fundamental issue is that a mine has never
before been allowed to dump its waste into a water body of the
United States.
2:56:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS repeated his earlier request to define
"water quality expert," and to explain Mr. Cadmus'
qualifications versus those of the USACE water quality expert,
who arrived at a different conclusion.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected as Mr. Cadmus never testified
he was an expert during the litigation.
MR. CADMUS replied that he earned a masters degree in water body
and wetland restoration. He indicated that his contact with
other agency water quality experts affirmed his high regard for
their expertise, and he felt he had no superior knowledge of the
subject.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS remarked that he assumed a conflict
existed since USACE issued a permit and SEACC contested the
permit, so there must have been legitimate debate.
2:58:27 PM
TOM BRICE, Juneau Business Agent, Laborers Local 942, offered
some history of the Kensington mine. He relayed that Coeur
Alaska awarded the construction contract for the Jualin mine
site to Alaska Interstate Construction LLC (AIC) in late June,
2005, and by mid July 2005, Laborers Local 942 had employees
working at the site. He said that there is an Alaska native
shareholders preference in the labor contract with AIC. Since
the initial contract, Laborers Local 942 has dispatched more
than 60 people to that job, and more than 30 percent of these
are Alaska Native. He observed that since the fall of 2005,
there has been an ongoing debate about mine tailings. He
offered his belief that Coeur Alaska "has gone to the table" to
address these concerns, but the proffered agreement was not
accepted by the "environmentalist board." He said he perceives
that the mine tailings dispute places those mine labor jobs at
risk. He conveyed these jobs pay a "living wage" which allow
workers to make house and car payments, receive health benefits,
and secure a strong retirement to support them when, after 15-20
years of "working construction and their bodies are ready to
give up, [they've] got something to fall back on." He asked the
committee to remember the impact of this lawsuit on "real
working Alaskans ... so they can have the American Dream."
MR. BRICE urged the committee's support of HJR 17.
3:01:26 PM
HAYWARD COOLY, Laborers Local 942, speaking on behalf of other
employees at [Kensington mine], offered his belief that [AIC]
pays the highest into retirement, for jobs which will continue
for the next 30 years with the passage of HJR 17. He stated
that this proposed bill can directly affect the workers and
their families, and indirectly affect the lives of "shop owners
and real estate agents." He offered his support of HJR 17.
3:02:37 PM
STEVE BORELL, Executive Director, Alaska Miners Association
(AMA), added a few comments to the AMA's letter of support the
committee members had in their packets. He offered his belief
that Coeur Alaska has been upfront and straightforward with the
community and the environmental groups during the more than 20
years of permitting for this project, and has made numerous
concessions and changes to its plans to address issues. He also
offered his belief that environmental organizations had
previously commented against dry stack tailings, yet now the
environmental organizations are speaking in favor of this
method. Coeur Alaska did not (indisc.) this method when the
price of gold went down, instead Coeur redesigned the project.
He said he believes that one of the benefits of the redesign was
the use of a "low productive lake" for a tailings impoundment
which will ultimately increase the size of the lake and create a
better fish habitat.
MR. BORELL, reflecting on the concern for earthquakes in the
area, reported that these types of dams are extremely strong and
described the dam containment to be consolidated tailings under
less than 30 feet of water. He compared the proposed dam to the
local dams built for electricity production, noting that these
dams have been functioning for more than 100 years. He allowed
that Coeur Alaska, in response to concerns of chemical use, had
committed to ship bulk concentrate from the mine rather than
process on site. He asserted that this change will eliminate 24
"value added processing" jobs locally.
MR. BORELL offered his belief that currently the real issue is
that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals "is out of touch." He
charged that almost 90 percent of 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
decisions have been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. He
referred to the decision by the U.S. District Court of Appeals
for the District of Alaska, Southeast Alaska Conservation
Council v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, in which the
judge reviewed the permits, concluding that there was compliance
with the law. He expressed his desire that should the U.S.
Supreme Court accept an appeal of Southeast Alaska Conservation
Council, it would agree with the District Court.
3:08:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked for an explanation of dry stack
tailings.
MR. BORELL explained that dry stack tailings disposal puts the
tailings material through a filter press, squeezes out as much
water as possible, about 70 percent, and then places the
concentrate into a lined landfill. When the tailings deposit is
complete, a capping material is compacted on top of the
tailings. He offered his opinion that the net effect to the
area would be a significantly smaller and less costly
alternative should Kensington mine be allowed to use Lower Slate
Lake to deposit the tailings, instead of the dry stack method.
He attempted to assure the committee that the tailings are not
toxic because there is a very low level of chemical use in the
floatation process [which is the process prior to the press
process mentioned above]. He relayed that the water in the
tailings impoundment does meet water quality standards, but the
issue with Southeast Alaska Conservation Council is whether the
tailings can be placed into a wetland. He commented that the
USACE and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) came to an
agreement regarding the initial placement of the tailings such
that so long as the water does not run off into a river or the
ocean, the USACE would be the regulators. He explained that
water does not need to meet the water quality standards until it
leaves the impoundment.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked for an explanation of the
permitting process to help determine why so many different water
quality experts came to such different conclusions.
MR. BORELL offered that Mr. Fogels could better describe the
process, however, he understood that Coeur Alaska presented a
plan, the State of Alaska, the USACE, and the EPA reviewed the
plan, then each side voiced concerns, adjusted designs, and
adjusted requirements until all the parties agreed that this was
a technically do-able process. He surmised that upon the
conclusion of this process, all the parties involved with this
discussion agreed that Lower Slate Lake was the best
alternative.
3:15:07 PM
EDMUND FOGELS, Acting Deputy Commissioner, Office of the
Commissioner, Anchorage Office, Department of Natural Resources
(DNR), in response to a question, said he doesn't consider
himself to be a water quality expert but rather a mine
permitting expert with a BA in Environmental Sciences, and he
has worked for DNR on large mine projects for over 12 years, as
well as general mining projects and issues for more than 20
years. In response to a request, he explained that because the
Kensington mine permitting process was complicated, he will only
speak to the last cycle. He explained that this was the third
attempt to permit and get the Kensington mine going. He
reported that Coeur Alaska first discussed the proposed project
with state agencies and received the agencies feedback,
including what permits were required. He conveyed that the most
important aspect for a large mine project is the federal
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), because the mine would
need key permits from the USACE and the EPA. He explained that
the EIS is a large, thorough environmental analysis of the
potential impacts of the mine, and this EIS took about three and
a half years to complete.
MR. FOGELS continued to explain that all the necessary state
authorizations and processes could be "piggybacked" onto the EIS
process. He summarized that upon completion of the EIS,
including the reviews of the geochemistry of the tailings and
the water quality results, the experts agreed the project was
environmentally sound and the impacts acceptable. The state
agencies then used that EIS as the basis for their decision
making process. He repeated that the EIS was the key, and
offered his belief that this EIS, undertaken by numerous
experts, was a very thorough analysis of all the facets of the
project, and that the agencies were very comfortable with their
analyses that the tailings going into Lower Slate Creek Lake
were "relatively benign," that the water quality coming off the
lake would "meet clean water standards," and that the lake could
be reclaimed in another generation to be at least as productive,
if not more so, than it was prior to mining.
3:20:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES asked if either the state or the attorney
general's office had any role in this litigation.
CAMERON LEONARD, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Natural
Resources Section, Civil Division (Fairbanks), Department of Law
(DOL), responded that the state was not originally named as a
defendant, but the state has since intervened as a defendant and
has actively defended the federal permits in front of the U.S.
District Court and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES commented that each member has in their
packet a resolution by the City and Borough of Juneau (CBJ)
entitled "A Resolution Urging a Negotiated Settlement of the
Kensington Gold Mine Litigation" which is a request by the city
for a return to mediation. She asked for a response regarding
why the state is encouraging further litigation, as opposed to
encouraging mediation. She offered her belief that mediation
could result in a faster, cheaper settlement.
MR. LEONARD responded that he was instructed to not take a
position on the resolution. He said he was aware of the CBJ
resolution, but was not aware that any mediation or settlement
discussions were currently taking place.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDREA DOLL, Alaska State Legislature, said that
the district as a whole favors the mine, wants to have the
employment and economic benefit of the mine, and wants it to be
successful. She emphasized that there is also a tremendous
desire to protect Berners Bay and to build the mine in an
"environmentally conscious way." She offered her belief that
Representative Holmes made a good observation that it would be
so advantageous for the parties to come together for mediation.
She concluded that she had not taken sides, but that the need is
to proceed in an "environmentally conscious" manner.
CHAIR RAMRAS, after asking if there was any further testimony,
closed public testimony on HJR 17.
3:24:18 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS moved to adopt HJR 17 as the working document.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected, relaying that CSHJR 17(RES) had
removed sections of the proposed resolution that did not speak
to the underlying intention of the resolution, which is to
encourage the mining company to pursue further litigation. She
offered her belief that the sections deleted from HJR 17 were
inflammatory, did not actually help the resolution, and would be
counterproductive if the real intent is to move the mine project
forward.
3:25:59 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Ramras, Samuels,
Dahlstrom, and Lynn voted in favor of adopting HJR 17 as the
working document. Representatives Holmes and Gruenberg voted
against it. Therefore, HJR 17 was adopted by a vote of 4-2.
3:26:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to report HJR 17 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected. She explained that it is her
belief that there was not a full discussion on encouraging
litigation rather than encouraging mediation, and that the
discussion was not concluded. She emphasized that she also
feels the language of HJR 17 contains unnecessary and
inflammatory language which does not speak to the intent.
3:27:59 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Ramras, Lynn,
Samuels, and Dahlstrom voted in favor of reporting HJR 17 from
committee. Representatives Gruenberg and Holmes voted against
it. Therefore, HJR 17 was reported out of the House Judiciary
Standing Committee by a vote of 4-2.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:28 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|